Subject: draft-bonica-6man-deprecate-router-alert

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 16:21:48 +0000

Folks,

Could I ask you to review and comment on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-deprecate-router-alert/ ?

If the response is not too averse, I will request a call for adoption.

                                                     Ron

Juniper Business Use Only

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 09:21:05 -0800

I would question the statement that RFC 6398 equates “fast path” and “control plane”. I would expect the “fast path” to be in the forwarding plane.

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 1, 2022, at 8:22 AM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Folks,
>  
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 17:56:27 +0000

Fred,

Good catch! I meant to say “forwarding plane”.

                                                         Ron

Juniper Business Use Only
From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 12:21 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-bonica-6man-deprecate-router-alert

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

On Mar 1, 2022, at 8:22 AM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=[email-masked]<mailto:rbonica=[email-masked]>> wrote:

Folks,

Could I ask you to review and comment on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-deprecate-router-alert/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-deprecate-router-alert/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!X52uiero87zFo4t3rFRHiNaF0UYbe84rQLdh5gqvGJWawU8tc1XNMIt-NTqM-42u$> ?

                                                     Ron

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 16:15:11 +0100

Hi,

just a few comments:

1) probably, it would be good to motivate a bit what functionality
    is achieved by using the RAO. One common application scenario
    is to realize path-coupled signaling, i.e., routers along a path
    toward the destination IP address process this packet in their
    control plane. In other words, routers intercept these RAO packets
    for control plane processing (and may forward them toward their
    final destination afterwards, letting other interested routers
    intercept it as well).

2) given the usage in 1), what are alternative possibilities that
    could be used? As former NSIS WG member I can remember quite some
    back and forth from the IESG (with the usual member fluctuations)
    with respect to the RAO. During the advancement of
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp
    was some pushback using the RAO due to security/DoS concerns on
    existing router implementations for router alert.
    So version 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-12 used some 
magic
    number in a UDP to a specific port in order to intercept
    packets that are normally destined end-to-end. This was found
    to be inefficient by some later IESG members, so RAO use went back
    in, but was still quite controversial discussed in the IESG.

3) I'd also like to point out that RAO interception can be made
    in a selective manner so that only packets with a specific
    set of supported Router Alert Option Values are passed to the
    control plane. Some former router implementations had the problem
    of passing every packet with an RAO to the control plane, regardless
    of its RAO value. So what section 5.3 in
 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing-00.html#name-router-alert-option
    describes sounds reasonable.

4) Your document potentially updates also RFC5350
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5350
    if approved.

So I'm actually not convinced to deprecate RAO and support the
discussion in section 5.3 of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing-00.html#name-router-alert-option

Regards,
  Roland

On 01.03.22 at 17:21 Ron Bonica wrote:
> Could I ask you to review and comment on 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-deprecate-router-alert/ 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bonica-6man-deprecate-router-alert/> 
> ?
>